What are the most common mistakes organizations make when prioritizing product road map features?

Unfortunately, in most organisations, people responsible for product think a) they already know their customers b) feel they are subject matter experts so don't need to liaise with target customers c) feel they've been building products in that domain already so know what customers need or want d) assume ux designers are good designers so should be able to build products customers need or e) ALL OF THE ABOVE! One of the biggest reasons products and features fail is when product teams make assumptions without validating them. Validation doesn't have to be exhaustive and there are plenty of lean UX and human-centred design techniques that can give answers to hypothesis quickly to help inform good product deicions.

Organizations often make the mistake of skipping comprehensive user research and testing, relying solely on internal opinions or assumptions about what users need. To address this, companies should invest in thorough user research, including surveys, usability studies, and beta testing, to gather real-world insights and validate assumptions against actual user behavior and preferences.

1. Not working on features that move the needle - mainly doing incremental bets or building features in search of user problems. 2. Not being clear about what the big features are in terms of the problem they're solving and unique insight that's driving it. 3. Underestimating complexity and time to complete resulting in a bunch of 40% done features. 4. Not paying down technical debt which catches up to you later. 5. Halfheartedly having and executing on features that an executive asked for and having them modestly succeed but no one knows why it wasn't a bigger hit.

Organisations tend to miss multiple stake holder journey but stick to single journey which they pre-assume is the best, we have ensured multiple journey and touch points are considered before execution, the end result should address needs of all stake holders including your audience.

A common variation of this is asking convenient people or those with the biggest job title (or vested interests) to score initiatives and backlog items rather than the _right_ people. For example: Supervisors from service teams who deal with issues can often provide more direct and grounded input about the relative impact initiatives will have on servicing and customer experience. This input shouldn’t be ignored in favour of someone convenient or better paid but further removed from the current reality. Ideally these valuable customer and internal voices help inform roadmap priorities and then continue to inform and champion the initiative.

While there are several factors, I see consistently delivery and results are impacted due to under estimating dependencies and problem solving for them. Map dependencies early on and iterate, triage and be willing to pivot while keeping the focus on critical components of customer and business strategy.

A very simple way to handle this could be to just have a mapping document handy which lists all the different product teams. A feature being prioritised should first be assessed from each team's perspective. This should be implemented at a process level to ensure no last minute surprises or delays.

Organizations often neglect to account for the intricate web of dependencies among features, leading to unforeseen challenges in execution. Features are seldom isolated entities; they are interconnected, and changes to one can significantly impact others. To address this, organizations should conduct a thorough analysis of feature dependencies, considering technical, resource, and timeline constraints.

When building the product road map, I've seen commercial teams become singularly focused on driving an unrealistic view of long-term revenue - based on future products to support an initial launch. Instead, it is critical to think about the collective resources required to support the longer-term plan; this includes internal support from cross-functional teams and how the plan is prioritized among other business needs. And also market willingness to support the plan, plus of course, customers interest or need for the new products (delivering relevant value) at each stage in the future.

One of the biggest mistakes is to not consider the ever evolving customer feedback in this age of innovation. Everyday there is a feature via a product which gives the customer a taste of something which they might not be seeing in your product. And that arises the expectations and thereby defines the experience. Before we make or re-make the roadmap we should always have a look at what the customer has been saying with respect to the current version of product they are experiencing.

. To mitigate this, it's crucial to establish a robust product strategy that outlines the long-term vision, goals, and unique value proposition. Before prioritizing features, teams should rigorously evaluate whether each aligns seamlessly with the established strategy. Implementing a strategic review process, perhaps through regular strategy sessions or cross-functional workshops, ensures that proposed features consistently contribute to the overall product direction and customer value.

Organizations often make the mistake of ignoring valuable user feedback when prioritizing features. Users provide insights into their preferences, pain points, and needs, which can significantly impact feature prioritization. Establishing effective feedback channels and actively listening to user input ensures that the prioritization process incorporates real-world user experiences, enhancing the chances of delivering features that resonate with the audience.

Pour éviter l'écueil de prioriser des fonctionnalités non alignées avec la stratégie, je préconise la méthode 4S : Spécifier = Définissez clairement votre stratégie produit en identifiant la vision, les objectifs à long terme et la proposition de valeur unique de votre produit. Structurer = Organisez vos idées et fonctionnalités selon leur adéquation avec la stratégie produit. Utilisez MECE. Solutionner = Identifiez et résolvez les écarts entre les fonctionnalités proposées et les objectifs stratégiques. Scénariser = Visualisez comment chaque fonctionnalité s'intègre dans le parcours utilisateur et soutient la vision globale. Cette approche assure que toutes les fonctionnalités contribuent efficacement à la stratégie globale du produit.

1. Prioritizing features not aligned with product strategy can lead to loss of focus and wasted resources. 2. Product strategy guides decisions on problem-solving, target audience, and differentiation. 3. Features aligned with strategy contribute directly to product vision, goals, and value proposition. 4. Lack of alignment may confuse customers and undermine brand identity. 5. Defining and adhering to product strategy helps filter and prioritize feature ideas effectively.

Falta de alinhamento com a estratégia do negócio: Priorizar recursos que n?o est?o alinhados com os objetivos estratégicos da organiza??o pode levar a um desperdício de recursos e esfor?os.

1. Prioritizing features solely based on influential stakeholders' input can compromise product vision and quality. 2. Stakeholders include customers, users, executives, investors, and partners. 3. It's crucial to listen to stakeholders but risky to prioritize solely based on their pressure or preferences. 4. Balancing stakeholder input with data and insights helps maintain product integrity and user experience. 5. Over-reliance on powerful stakeholders' input may lead to skewed priorities and missed opportunities for innovation.

Ignorar o feedback do usuário: N?o levar em conta as opini?es e feedback dos usuários ao priorizar recursos pode resultar em um produto que n?o atende às expectativas do cliente.

Stakeholder analysis is a key ingredient for success. You have to understand who are the key players in the market and what they need. However, many companies are quick to antagonize stakeholders that are projected to offer resistance to the product. Instead, they should find ways to buy in the stakeholders that seem to be against the product. A little creativity and thinking out of the box, and sometimes maybe settling for a win-win situation could make a great inroad for the product. For example, if the product is incrementing on an existing solution, you could strive to throw the competition out of the market or find ways to partner with them.

1. very important to include stakeholders' inputs in product innovation as they present internal and external resource to assure a successful launch. 2. best to select the stakeholders to innovation project and set review gates to balance their inputs

Stakeholder input is vital in serving customer-centric business models. However it is important to keep an eye on market dynamics and internal burn metrics and do adequate need validation before jumping on that customer pain point.

From Pragmatic Marketing training I learned one tool for prioritization which works for me now and the best - create your own prioritization formula based on your strategy. Also, you will prioritize both problems and solutions. Prioritizing problems to solve is the key and the formula are: Problem priority = Problem severity * Market evidence However, we can expand this formula by adding the "weights" for different customer groups or stakeholder groups (as in different releases and product milestones we might have different focus) and based on this formula we can balance the development while still having clear priorities.

1. Prioritizing features without a framework can lead to subjective, inconsistent decisions. 2. A framework provides criteria like value, effort, risk, or urgency for evaluating feature ideas. 3. Without a framework, decisions may rely on gut feelings, intuition, or popularity. 4. Using a framework promotes objective, transparent, and rational decision-making processes. 5. Popular frameworks include MoSCoW, RICE, Kano, or Value vs. Complexity, aiding in effective prioritization.

Surely having a framework will help, but don't just pick up which is very popular. Always check the relevance to your context which framework most suits. MoSCoW is a prioritization technique commonly used in project management and software development it stands for Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, Won't Have (or Would Have But Not This Time) Two other highly recommended frameworks for prioritization are: Eisenhower Matrix: This matrix categorizes tasks based on their urgency and importance, helping individuals and teams prioritize tasks effectively by focusing on what's truly important Value vs. Complexity Matrix: This matrix evaluates tasks or features based on their value to the organization versus their complexity to implement.

Implementar un marco de trabajo estructurado, como Agile, Lean, o Design Thinking, puede ayudar a facilitar el proceso de priorización y garantizar una toma de decisiones más coherente y efectiva.

Focus on needs, solutions that add value to the user, then figure out the features that deliver that value. Test often with users and then adjust.

The whole point of priorities are to go in set manner to achieve a set goal. Many a times these are disrupted to accommodate something which has not been thought through and validated just on an assumption something went wrong suddenly.

It is important to have new test groups and mindset for new feedback acceptance to ensure the set priorities are achieved. The reason to have new users group assure past experience and knowledge gain doesn’t impair first time experience response for priorities. As a habitual nature same test groups tend to get influenced by past product experience and cognitive capability to overcome any usability challenges persist in journey. In practical scenarios it is hard for organisations to find new test groups but there are multiple ways we practise to get response for those experiences.

This is the importance of Continuous Discovery in a nutshell. Teresa Torres has written a great book on this 'Continuous Discovery Habits'. Instead of running large research projects every 6 months, we need to look at a smaller, more consistent cadence that keeps the design team's fingers on the pulse, more flexible and agile, and keeps them up to date, literally on a weekly basis. Yesterday is not tomorrow. Don't wait 6 months to figure out you missed the turn.

Review progress. Triangulate target. Readjust accordingly. The fastest way to fail is rigidity when the market is very dynamic. Learning and adaptation is the key to survival. In short, you can ride the winds of battle the storm.

Product roadmaps are usually build at start of the year and prioritised at regular intervals which might vary between organisations. It is important to consider below 1. As customer expectations, market dynamics changes, it is important to not only prioritise but also relook at the roadmap features 2. Always have a budget aligned towards enablers ( tech debt , platform upscaling ) voice of customer , quick wins which are not in the roadmap. 3. Framework for adding new features , changing roadmaps , prioritising them and calculating /adjusting benefits out of them should be incorporated in the organisations so that product managers/ owners feel Empowered.

Mistake 7 overestimate the future outcome (and underestimate the past ones) Usually when scoping a roadmap we are always keen to be over optimistic for the new projects and to be too pessimistic in the on-going ones. This leads to take the wrong decisions if we are not fully aware of that issue.

Most product teams are moving too quickly to consider the all consequences of their feature decisions. Often times they find themselves reacting to a competitive product offering because it's less risky to follow the leader. The more you look left and right, the less you are looking down the track. Brands who understand their WHY aren't focused on what is happening next to them, they are focused on staying out in front. The customers you WANT don't buy for the features, they buy for the BRAND. If your products don't walk that talk, no amount of features will ever make up for it.

Besides the points called out earlier in this article, I would highlight the below mistakes that are most common when organizations prioritize product road map features. 1. Over indexing on internal priorities : During prioritization teams would gravitate towards internal enterprise priorities and miss out on critical customer needs 2. Ignoring technical debt : Important foundational work or tech upgrades may not be exciting but are sometimes necessary. Need to allocate resources to these less glamorous tasks. 3. Not balancing short term vs long term : Need a mix of quick wins and long-term strategic bets. Myopic focus on either shortens company's outlook.

The assumption is features should be prioritised over addressing the needs of the people within their specific contexts. This more likely creates misalignments between what's built and what actually solves people's pressing issues or enhances their experiences. Instead of using a feature-first mindset, why not prioritise based on how well a product or service fulfils a need in the specific context that matters? This shift will anyway lead to more innovative solutions, better user satisfaction, and a stronger market position as a result.